Foreign Policy: John Bolton vs Dr. Elie Krakowski

When President Trump was inaugurated, America’s foreign policy was a disaster.

Conflicts involving Russia, China, Korea, and Iran were arguably caused by the previous administration’s permissive policy. According to reports the Russia-Ukraine conflict started in November 2014. Even liberal news stations have said the South China Sea conflict began in 2014. After Obama’s inauguration, North Korea returned to the international stage announcing the testing of ballistic missiles. While the Obama administration passivity increased, North Korea’s dangerous activity increased.

And, of course, there is the infamous Iran deal and other related backdoor money deals. In short, the Trump Administration needs new foreign policies.

Ambassador John Bolton, a highly anticipated speaker at CPAC 2017, emphasized his personal forte at the annual conference. He discussed the need for bold foreign policy. He believes in re-instituting America’s international presence.

However, during my interview with Dr. Elie Krakowski, he explained the foreign affairs dilemma a little differently. “There has been a worldwide withdraw which has created power vacuums encouraging all the nasty actors on the international scene to become more aggressive.”

Krakowski, President and CEO of EDK Consulting, LLC, earned his PhD and MPhil from Columbia University. He was a professor of International Relations and Law at Boston University. During the 1980s, he served under the US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

Dr. Krakowski is often involved in National Security and reconstruction policy issues regarding Afghanistan.

THE IRAN DEAL

In his swift style, Bolton stated that Trump “… should abrogate that (Iran) deal. End that deal as soon as possible. We need a clear statement from the United States that it was a strategic debacle for our country and we don’t intend to let it persist.”

Dr. Krakowski agreed on ending the Iran deal. But, he emphasized, “How you do it is just as important as what you do. Redressing all the harm that’s been done will be difficult. The problem here is the track record. The reputation of not standing up, not reacting, and not doing things; if Trump wants to change that, it’s not going to be easy.”

Action vs Reaction

“They will test the United States to see if we mean business,” said Dr. Krakowski. “That means the possibility of using force. If we say we’re going to be forceful, then they’re going to push. Then, they’ll see do we react or don’t we react.”

Bolton posited a more active outlook while Krakowski emphasized a more reactionary outlook.

Take North Korea’s missile testing as an example. The US’s reaction shows a more passive rather than a reactionary approach. Previous reports say the past missile tests did not pose a legitimate threat. The missile tests failed and were not capable of reaching the US. If there was a more serious threat, the US would have had a stronger response.

What role do you think the US’s foreign policy should be? Should Trump take Bolton’s, Krakowski’s or a different role? Share your thoughts in the comments.

About The Author

Nathan is a Jewish American-Iranian who studied in Israel for three years following high school. He graduated from Touro College’s Lander College with a Bachelors of Arts in Psychology. Afterwards, he was a research assistant with Stanford University’s Psychophysiology Lab and the University of Maryland. He hopes to pursue psychology in graduate school.

1 Comment

ShanNon
on May 23, 2017 at 7:35 pm

I think first the views expressed do not account for critical trends that have been taking place over the last several decades that have culminated at the start of the 21st century. If you want to talk about bad foreign policy: Obama basically had to deal with Bush’s mistakes and Bill clinton mistakes created George Bush’s mistakes. North Korea had been testing the US since it first began in the mid 20th century, and blaming a foreign policy crisis on a previous administration is not a constructive way to frame the foreign policy of a future administration. John Bolton will get the US embroiled in another Middle East disaster and actually make it worse. Iran will not want to renegotiate the deal because their recent electetion symbolifies continued engagement and openes towards the Western world. Both picks are inexperienced in shaping policies. Trump is a realist and his foreign policy is okay and will probably succeed because it’s a drastic departure from previous administrations. He should keep doing what he’s doing.